Hey everyone,
It's SPL retention season and I figured I'd bring up a few thoughts here before it's too late. Let me immediately get out of the way that this thread is not about removing retention or supercharging it; I want to focus on a few aspects of retention that were left behind as we gradually improved the rules around it for the better over the years.
1. Retaining players that were traded
As of right now, you can only retain players that were drafted in the auction by the same team that's attempting to retain the player. Earlier tonight an exception was made for ima, given that he was traded before Week 1 had started, as well as extenuating circumstances being listed. This made me wonder why an exception even needed to be made in the first place. ima was drafted by the Tyrants and his contract, so to speak, was traded to the BIGs. The BIGs traded for the right to put ima in their lineup and ima ended the season as a BIGs player. Why wouldn't any team be allowed to retain any traded player? It's not like the price of retention is whatever terms the two teams involved in the trade came up with + 3k, right? You'd still be paying 3k on top of the price that was paid for the player in auction when all 10 teams had a chance to bid as much money as they deemed the player in question to be worth. If a player is displaying a bad attitude and tries to move to a different franchise in order to be retained there in the future, then the trade needs to meet a certain standard for it not to be vetoed by the hosts like any other trade. The community will police itself there, as seen with last year's trade for Ojama. I don't see any harm or any possible abuse in allowing retention for traded players; if a team acquires a player's contract, then that player is 100% a part of their new franchise, fair and square.
2. Retaining players purchased in the mid-season auction
It is not allowed to retain players purchased in the mid-season auction under the current rules. This rule, however, was put in place back when you could sign up for the mid-season auction even if you hadn't signed up for the auction at the start of the season. Obviously, if you're able to get someone like blunder for 6.5k, because he hadn't signed up until the mid-season, then you shouldn't be able to retain him for 10k the following year. This isn't possible anymore. Only players that went undrafted at the start of the season - and thus had already signed up originally - are able to sign up for the mid-season auction. Retaining a player bought during the mid-season is no longer something managers can abuse, because all 10 teams had a chance to buy such a player during the first auction. We should allow players bought during the mid-season to be retained the season after.
These are the two ideas I had in mind, but I might be forgetting some other details around retention that we forgot to touch on as we improved the retention rules bit my bit. Feel free to post any other suggestions in this thread if you have them.
It's SPL retention season and I figured I'd bring up a few thoughts here before it's too late. Let me immediately get out of the way that this thread is not about removing retention or supercharging it; I want to focus on a few aspects of retention that were left behind as we gradually improved the rules around it for the better over the years.
1. Retaining players that were traded
As of right now, you can only retain players that were drafted in the auction by the same team that's attempting to retain the player. Earlier tonight an exception was made for ima, given that he was traded before Week 1 had started, as well as extenuating circumstances being listed. This made me wonder why an exception even needed to be made in the first place. ima was drafted by the Tyrants and his contract, so to speak, was traded to the BIGs. The BIGs traded for the right to put ima in their lineup and ima ended the season as a BIGs player. Why wouldn't any team be allowed to retain any traded player? It's not like the price of retention is whatever terms the two teams involved in the trade came up with + 3k, right? You'd still be paying 3k on top of the price that was paid for the player in auction when all 10 teams had a chance to bid as much money as they deemed the player in question to be worth. If a player is displaying a bad attitude and tries to move to a different franchise in order to be retained there in the future, then the trade needs to meet a certain standard for it not to be vetoed by the hosts like any other trade. The community will police itself there, as seen with last year's trade for Ojama. I don't see any harm or any possible abuse in allowing retention for traded players; if a team acquires a player's contract, then that player is 100% a part of their new franchise, fair and square.
2. Retaining players purchased in the mid-season auction
It is not allowed to retain players purchased in the mid-season auction under the current rules. This rule, however, was put in place back when you could sign up for the mid-season auction even if you hadn't signed up for the auction at the start of the season. Obviously, if you're able to get someone like blunder for 6.5k, because he hadn't signed up until the mid-season, then you shouldn't be able to retain him for 10k the following year. This isn't possible anymore. Only players that went undrafted at the start of the season - and thus had already signed up originally - are able to sign up for the mid-season auction. Retaining a player bought during the mid-season is no longer something managers can abuse, because all 10 teams had a chance to buy such a player during the first auction. We should allow players bought during the mid-season to be retained the season after.
These are the two ideas I had in mind, but I might be forgetting some other details around retention that we forgot to touch on as we improved the retention rules bit my bit. Feel free to post any other suggestions in this thread if you have them.